Romney BS this morning but believed by all cons

[wbcoleman]

Our rights don't come from government, they come from our creator.

Guess what, guys--our Constitution can take those rights away via Due Process, so it IS a matter of what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently, have you?

The Declaration, addressed to the government of King George, a king who was also head of a state religion, isn't law. The Constitution is.

The Declaration provides the philosophical basis for the establishment of the American republic.

It did not provide the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, prior to which was the Articles of Confederation which the Declaration would have had any philosophical connection with.  The Articles failed, which is why we have a Constitution. FAIL

You can make these ill-informed assertions until the cows come home, but all you're accomplishing is to demonstrate gaps in your historical knowledge.

[wbcoleman]

Our rights don't come from government, they come from our creator.

Guess what, guys--our Constitution can take those rights away via Due Process, so it IS a matter of what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

And you don't understand the Due Process Clause either.

You appear to understand it even less because you're under the mistaken notion that the Declaration of Independence is something other than a declaration.

The Due Process Clauses have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with taking away anybody's rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Wiki isn't any kind of bible or other holy scripture and is subject to many defects.

Via Due Process, the government can deprive a person of

* Life (and cons, more than any other faction, approve of the Death Penalty)
*Liberty (as in incarceration)
*Pursuit of Happiness, as in Property (you don't even have to be a criminal to be subject to Eminent Domain property seizure).

...which addresses your Declaration of Independence rot in the other thread, as these are listed as unalienable rights therein.

That's right, shoot the messenger.  In addition to history, you might consider reading up a bit on political and constitutional theory.

I apologize for coming across as condescending, but you keeping backing your ass into these indefensible, inaccurate positions.

[Woody]

Our rights don't come from government, they come from our creator.

Guess what, guys--our Constitution can take those rights away via Due Process, so it IS a matter of what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently, have you?

The Declaration, addressed to the government of King George, a king who was also head of a state religion, isn't law. The Constitution is.

The Declaration provides the philosophical basis for the establishment of the American republic.

It did not provide the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, prior to which was the Articles of Confederation which the Declaration would have had any philosophical connection with.  The Articles failed, which is why we have a Constitution. FAIL

You can make these ill-informed assertions until the cows come home, but all you're accomplishing is to demonstrate gaps in your historical knowledge.

Sorry dude, I disagree with you.  I think she grasps history very well and understands the true meaning.  No sir, I am too cynical.  The argument against romney and god given rights was created by the campaign and fits with their big government philosophy.  What is the best way to convince people that Obama style big government is what is best for you than convincing them that your rights are derived from government benevolence?

[wbcoleman]

Our rights don't come from government, they come from our creator.

Guess what, guys--our Constitution can take those rights away via Due Process, so it IS a matter of what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently, have you?

The Declaration, addressed to the government of King George, a king who was also head of a state religion, isn't law. The Constitution is.

The Declaration provides the philosophical basis for the establishment of the American republic.

It did not provide the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, prior to which was the Articles of Confederation which the Declaration would have had any philosophical connection with.  The Articles failed, which is why we have a Constitution. FAIL

You can make these ill-informed assertions until the cows come home, but all you're accomplishing is to demonstrate gaps in your historical knowledge.

Sorry dude, I disagree with you.  I think she grasps history very well and understands the true meaning.  No sir, I am too cynical.  The argument against romney and god given rights was created by the campaign and fits with their big government philosophy.  What is the best way to convince people that Obama style big government is what is best for you than convincing them that your rights are derived from government benevolence?

So you think she's deliberately dissembling?

[Woody]

Our rights don't come from government, they come from our creator.

Guess what, guys--our Constitution can take those rights away via Due Process, so it IS a matter of what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently, have you?

The Declaration, addressed to the government of King George, a king who was also head of a state religion, isn't law. The Constitution is.

The Declaration provides the philosophical basis for the establishment of the American republic.

It did not provide the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, prior to which was the Articles of Confederation which the Declaration would have had any philosophical connection with.  The Articles failed, which is why we have a Constitution. FAIL

You can make these ill-informed assertions until the cows come home, but all you're accomplishing is to demonstrate gaps in your historical knowledge.

Sorry dude, I disagree with you.  I think she grasps history very well and understands the true meaning.  No sir, I am too cynical.  The argument against romney and god given rights was created by the campaign and fits with their big government philosophy.  What is the best way to convince people that Obama style big government is what is best for you than convincing them that your rights are derived from government benevolence?

So you think she's deliberately dissembling?

Yes sir, I do. 

[RWE]

Via Due Process, the government can deprive a person of

* Life (and cons, more than any other faction, approve of the Death Penalty)
*Liberty (as in incarceration)
*Pursuit of Happiness, as in Property (you don't even have to be a criminal to be subject to Eminent Domain property seizure).

...which addresses your Declaration of Independence rot in the other thread, as these are listed as unalienable rights therein.

If you don't believe in God then you naturally hold the opinion that rights come from somewhere other than a creator. I suppose Hitler used  due process when he revoked the right to life and liberty from millions of people. And that's why it's important to keep people who think rights are a gift of government out of government. If government can pass a law revoking my right to life then that's a good argument for me owning any weapon I can afford and all the ammo I could desire.

Guess what, guys... what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You're the one who said it. Nobody has a right to be born. Nobody has a right to food, clean air or water. Nobody has a right to live. Nobody has a right to health care. We owe everything to our benevolent leader.

[wbcoleman]

Via Due Process, the government can deprive a person of

* Life (and cons, more than any other faction, approve of the Death Penalty)
*Liberty (as in incarceration)
*Pursuit of Happiness, as in Property (you don't even have to be a criminal to be subject to Eminent Domain property seizure).

...which addresses your Declaration of Independence rot in the other thread, as these are listed as unalienable rights therein.

If you don't believe in God then you naturally hold the opinion that rights come from somewhere other than a creator. I suppose Hitler used  due process when he revoked the right to life and liberty from millions of people. And that's why it's important to keep people who think rights are a gift of government out of government. If government can pass a law revoking my right to life then that's a good argument for me owning any weapon I can afford and all the ammo I could desire.

Guess what, guys... what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You're the one who said it. Nobody has a right to be born. Nobody has a right to food, clean air or water. Nobody has a right to live. Nobody has a right to health care. We owe everything to our benevolent leader.

This is the philosophical justification for totalitarianism, is it not?

[clistensprechen]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

[clistensprechen]

I'm deliberately dissembling nothing. Anybody who skips over the Articles of Confederation that was the direct result of the Declaration of Independence is dissembling. There is no direct connection between the Declaration and the Constitution.  There IS a direct connection between the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation, which FAILED, and it is the failure thereof that resulted in the Constitution.

[wbcoleman]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

Human rights are granted by the government:  That is the recipe for totalitarianism.

[clistensprechen]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

Human rights are granted by the government:  That is the recipe for totalitarianism.

Exactly why cons have succeeded under Gingrich's "permanent majority plan" and why oligarchs again strive to insist on their view of their Divine Right to Rule. Of course it is. What prevents it is checks and balances vs the nonsense about "separation of powers" tommyrot.

[clistensprechen]

Via Due Process, the government can deprive a person of

* Life (and cons, more than any other faction, approve of the Death Penalty)
*Liberty (as in incarceration)
*Pursuit of Happiness, as in Property (you don't even have to be a criminal to be subject to Eminent Domain property seizure).

...which addresses your Declaration of Independence rot in the other thread, as these are listed as unalienable rights therein.

If you don't believe in God then you naturally hold the opinion that rights come from somewhere other than a creator. I suppose Hitler used  due process when he revoked the right to life and liberty from millions of people. And that's why it's important to keep people who think rights are a gift of government out of government. If government can pass a law revoking my right to life then that's a good argument for me owning any weapon I can afford and all the ammo I could desire.

Guess what, guys... what the government giveth, the government can take away, legally.

You're the one who said it. Nobody has a right to be born. Nobody has a right to food, clean air or water. Nobody has a right to live. Nobody has a right to health care. We owe everything to our benevolent leader.

This is the philosophical justification for totalitarianism, is it not?

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

[wbcoleman]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

Human rights are granted by the government:  That is the recipe for totalitarianism.

Exactly why cons have succeeded under Gingrich's "permanent majority plan" and why oligarchs again strive to insist on their view of their Divine Right to Rule. Of course it is. What prevents it is checks and balances vs the nonsense about "separation of powers" tommyrot.

These comments are completely wrong-headed.

The Founders felt that certain rights were INALIENABLE and that they were derived from mankind's CREATOR.  They felt that, while government was meant to be the GUARANTOR of natural rights, government was not the SOURCE.

You really don't see the difference?

[wbcoleman]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

[clistensprechen]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

Human rights are granted by the government:  That is the recipe for totalitarianism.

Exactly why cons have succeeded under Gingrich's "permanent majority plan" and why oligarchs again strive to insist on their view of their Divine Right to Rule. Of course it is. What prevents it is checks and balances vs the nonsense about "separation of powers" tommyrot.

These comments are completely wrong-headed.

The Founders felt that certain rights were INALIENABLE and that they were derived from mankind's CREATOR.  They felt that, while government was meant to be the GUARANTOR of natural rights, government was not the SOURCE.

You really don't see the difference?

The difference doesn't matter because the Constitution didn't recognize any unalienable rights of women, children, Indians or slaves, and here you stand before me inferring that they did.  Your idea of a creator is a failure.